Fans of legal dramas will be excited to learn that somewhere very real, a defendant is in fact banging on tables, shouting at judges and making grand declarations of innocence to the court. Unfortunately for them, it isn't being broadcast to the public, despite the defendant's request.
But by following transcripts and reporting, they too can enjoy Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's outbursts from the stand. Wednesday's was particularly theatrical. To set the stage, this day of testimony in Case 4000 began like many of the previous ones: with Netanyahu's attorney Amit Hadad going over each individual instance of media meddling mentioned in the prime minister's indictment for bribery, fraud and breach of trust.
Those instances allegedly point to an understanding between Netanyahu and the media mogul Shaul Elovitch to exchange regulatory benefits for the Bezeq company – of which Elovitch was controlling shareholder – for positive coverage in the Walla News site, which was owned by Bezeq. There are 315 in all; on Wednesday, Netanyahu's 17th day of testimony, they were on number 16.
Judge Moshe Bar-Am was urging Hadad to move more quickly in his questioning of Netanyahu – each question was the same, as was each answer from the premier (refuting that the event in question occurred, or denying knowledge of it). Judge Oded Shacham reminded Hadad that he said he would shorten these presentations, and Netanyahu responded that this was the result. Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman, the lead judge of the panel, added her two cents, saying that the result is unsatisfactory. And then the performance began.
Netanyahu shouted in English at the judges, "I protest!" and launched into a monologue about how the allegations against him "put me and my family through hell," but that he will "dismantle" them, and reveal their absurdity to the world.
"Sir, lower your tone," responded Friedman-Feldman. But Netanyahu continued, banging on the table. "If I raise my voice – and I will raise my voice – it's not an act," he said.
An act, in this case, would be the best-case scenario. It would mean that the man in charge – of a nation, of a war, of an economy, of the fate of hostages, of the futures of Israelis and Palestinians alike – is thinking a few steps ahead. It would mean that he is savvy enough to know that if he makes enough noise, then his own statements and framings of this criminal trial will be the headline, and not the prosecution's accusations. It would mean that he has a plan.
If it isn't, that doesn't bode well for us. That would mean that he cannot handle a situation in which he does not feel that he is in total control. That would mean that he lets his emotions pilot him even when he's expected to be on his best behavior. That would mean that our prime minister, who has been indicted in three criminal cases, can muster rage, passion, obstinacy and conviction while trying to shield himself from consequences, but not for the families of the people who were killed or kidnapped on his watch.